An evacuation chair provision assessment must establish whether everyone who may need assistance can reach safety, including when an intended route is unavailable. The Irish provisions discussed here do not prescribe a universal chair count. They require adequate arrangements. One chair beside one staircase is therefore an arrangement to test, rather than evidence that the building is ready.

The assessment needs to include visitors and people who can walk on level ground but cannot manage stairs. Equipment, its location, safe transfers and available staff must be considered together.

This is a planning overview for management. It must not be used as instructions for operating a chair or transferring a person. The number, location and suitability of devices need assessment for the particular premises and people.

Equipment images are AI-assisted illustrations based on catalogue photographs. They illustrate components only; use the current instructions for the exact chair model.

Is adequate provision a legal requirement?

Adequacy is part of the legal duty. It should not be treated as an optional improvement beyond a supposedly compliant minimum.

Section 11 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 requires employers to prepare and revise adequate emergency plans and procedures. Section 11(1)(a) covers necessary evacuation measures for employees and any other individual present at the workplace. Section 11(1)(c)(ii) requires adequate numbers of designated employees, their training and the equipment available to them, taking account of workplace size and specific hazards.

A purchase invoice for a chair does not establish those things. Management needs to explain how the equipment and staff will meet the foreseeable demand.

Section 19 provides the risk-assessment basis for identifying hazards, assessing risks and taking improvement measures. The assessment must address the actual workplace and people affected, with review when circumstances change.

The relevant emergency-route provision in the General Application Regulations 2007 is regulation 12. Regulation 11 concerns doors and gates. Regulation 12 addresses suitable routes and exits, including evacuation quickly and as safely as possible. Regulation 25 addresses the organisation of workplaces for people with disabilities. Regulations 68 and 69 address manual-handling risks relevant to assisted transfers.

Who is responsible for evacuation, and what does the fire service do?

Section 18(2) of the Fire Services Act 1981, as substituted by section 29 of the 2003 amending Act, places duties on every person having control over premises within its scope. These include reasonable fire precautions, appropriate fire-safety procedures applied at all times, and ensuring the safety of people on the premises as far as reasonably practicable.

For management, the practical implication is that an evacuation plan must operate when a fire occurs. A telephone call for assistance does not replace arrangements for the people already inside.

The fire service does have a rescue role. Section 10(2) of the Fire Services Act 1981 requires fire authorities to make provision for fire extinguishment and the protection and rescue of people and property from injury by fire. Section 25 also provides for emergency operations, whether or not involving fire, including rescue and safeguarding people.

It would be inaccurate to say that the fire service never evacuates or rescues occupants. The issue is whether management has fulfilled its own duties. An assumption that firefighters will arrive and carry someone downstairs does not establish that an employer has provided adequate evacuation arrangements.

Section 11(1)(b) of the workplace Act requires necessary contacts with appropriate emergency services. Liaison should inform the plan, including information about assistance needs and refuge communications, without treating an assumed response time or a future rescue as a substitute for an assessed method.

What do building regulations and equality law contribute?

Requirement B1 in Part B of the Building Regulations concerns warning and adequate means of escape to a place of safety outside the building. Part M addresses access and use within its applicable scope. An accessible entrance does not, by itself, demonstrate an adequate emergency exit arrangement.

Building Regulations govern relevant building work and changes of use; the applicable requirements, transitional provisions and certificate conditions need checking for the particular building. The newest design guidance should not simply be described as retrospectively applying in full to every existing building. Continuing workplace and fire-safety management duties still need addressing.

Technical Guidance Document B, Volume 1, is Irish guidance on meeting Part B. Under article 7 of the Building Regulations, following applicable technical guidance provides a prima facie indication of compliance. Other suitable solutions are possible. This gives the guidance a recognised role without turning every recommendation into a separately worded statutory requirement.

Equality duties also need distinguishing. Section 16 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 addresses appropriate measures for employees with disabilities, subject to the disproportionate-burden provisions. Section 4 of the Equal Status Act 2000 addresses reasonable accommodation in services under a different statutory test.

Neither provision should be paraphrased as a universal literal rule requiring an evacuation chair at every staircase. They support examining whether arrangements address the person and the setting concerned, rather than assuming that one standard purchase answers every need.

Must someone be able to turn away from the fire?

The current edition is TGD B 2024, Volume 1, reprinted in January 2026. Paragraph 1.1.3 states the general principle that people should be able to "turn their backs on a fire" and travel away towards a protected escape route and safety. It also recognises limited circumstances permitting a single direction of escape. TGD B, paragraph 1.1.3, printed page 23.

The principle predates this edition: the 2006 document, reprinted in 2020, includes it in paragraph 1.0.4.

For assisted evacuation, this creates a practical assessment question. If fire or smoke makes the intended route unusable, can the person reach another suitable route, and can the necessary assistance and equipment reach them there?

If the only chair is beside the unusable stair, moving the person towards another stair may still leave no usable method of descent. That is a gap requiring resolution. Depending on the strategy, resolution may involve distributed chairs, another suitable aid or an appropriately designed evacuation lift. Any alternative needs to work for the people and conditions involved.

A suitable method must also cover the journey beyond the stair. The destination, unloading, onward movement and necessary assistance should be established.

Does every refuge require an evacuation chair?

TGD B describes a refuge as a place of relative safety for awaiting evacuation assistance or resting during escape. Within the scope of paragraph 1.9.14.1, it provides for at least one refuge per stairway per floor. Refuge space and communication provisions are separate from equipment allocation. TGD B, paragraphs 1.9.14 to 1.9.14.5, printed pages 124-126.

An assistance phone point does not establish that the location meets the refuge provisions, or that a suitable evacuation method is available. Management needs an onward plan.

Where a chair is the assessed means of leaving that location, its availability matters. Retrieving a shared chair must be feasible under the fire conditions being considered, with staff available to assist. A chair already carrying someone elsewhere cannot simultaneously serve another person.

The RESNA position paper on emergency stair travel devices recommends a goal of at least one device on each floor of each stairwell in buildings providing public goods or services, with additional provision for known users. This is an overseas professional recommendation, not an Irish statutory quota. It offers a useful distribution benchmark to examine, alongside the actual evacuation strategy.

How should management assess the number and locations?

The following sequence is a practical framework, not a statutory calculation.

Establish the evacuation strategy. Review the building use, approved design, relevant certificates and conditions. Identify escape routes, compartments, refuges, final exits and any lift designed for evacuation. An ordinary passenger lift must not simply be counted as an evacuation solution.
Identify who may need assistance. Include known occupants, visitors, temporary injuries and other difficulties with stairs. Use individual plans where appropriate, with arrangements for unexpected visitors. Ability to walk across a room does not establish an ability to descend several flights.
Map a workable method to the routes. For each relevant floor and assistance location, establish how the person reaches safety. Test credible situations where an intended route is unavailable. Check whether equipment can be reached without entering the affected area.
Assess the device and transfers. Check suitability for the person, deployed stability, support, restraints, transfer access, stairs and landings. Establish the help needed to enter and leave the device, as well as to operate it. Basement escape may require ascent rather than descent.
Assess simultaneous demand and reuse. Include response, retrieval, preparation, transfer, travel and unloading. A proposed shared chair needs a feasible complete operating cycle, including any safe return. Waiting arrangements must be assessed; nobody should be left without necessary support to release the chair.
Set quantities and staffing together. Check every shift, absences and competing emergency duties. Locate equipment so it is accessible and does not obstruct escape or refuge space. Include maintenance and inspection under the applicable instructions.
Validate and review the arrangements. Use suitably planned and supervised exercises. Record delays, missed calls, transfer difficulties and unavailable routes. Correct failures and review after changes. A drill should not expose a dependent person to an unsafe transfer.

The National Disability Authority's Safe Evacuation for All guide supports personal and general arrangements, visitor planning and training. It is a 2011 guide; its older legal and standards references need checking before use as current requirements.

What does the four-storey example show?

Consider a building described as four storeys, with one access stair, four escape stairs and emergency assistance phones. There are known wheelchair users on floors described as the first and fourth, plus visitors and others who may need help with steps.

These facts identify planning needs; they do not establish a chair total. The floor numbering needs clarification, and the building use, route layout, refuge status, lifts, protection, occupancy and staffing remain unknown.

For assessment, label the escape stairs A to D and map each relevant floor against them. For each person or foreseeable group, establish the primary route, alternative route, suitable evacuation method and available responders.

Suppose the intended route at stair A is unavailable. Can the person reach stair B, and can the required chair and staff reach that location? What happens if a chair is already serving someone on another floor? Can visitors be accommodated without assuming that only the two known wheelchair users require help?

A plan fails this scenario if it depends on equipment that cannot be accessed when needed. The corrective provision should follow the demonstrated gap. Neither two known users, four stairs nor multiplying floors by stairs provides an automatic legal answer.

How do supported seats and hammock seats differ?

These are descriptive design terms rather than two statutory safety classifications.

A supported-seat design generally provides a defined seating surface supported by the chair structure. A hammock-style design uses a suspended or contoured flexible seat. The actual shape, back support and deployed frame need examination; the word "fabric" does not establish poor support. Seat construction and the deployed wheelbase are separate features; the label alone is not a specification.

Exitmaster's earlier manufacturer brochure identifies a supportive seat as a feature intended to ease transfer. Its current evacuation guide presents upright four-wheel designs alongside a traditional kickstand design. These show different approaches to loading position, seated support and movement on level surfaces, rather than a universal replacement of one chair style by another.

The intended benefit of a supported seat is a defined seating surface that can make movement from another seat, and out again, easier. Whether it does so depends on seat height, transfer access, deployed stability, compatible aids and the help the person needs. This is a design consideration to test during assessment, not proof of a safe one-person transfer.

Compare the actual devices:

Can the chair remain stable during loading? Deployed base, wheels, brakes or stabilising arrangements and the actions required from staff.
Can the person transfer safely? Seat height, access, aids, assistance and the person's ability to contribute.
Is seated support suitable? Posture, restraints, head and trunk needs, pressure redistribution and ability to reposition.
Can the device negotiate the route? Model limits, stair profile, landings, doors, load and any ascent requirement.
What happens after descent? Safe unloading, onward mobility, seating and continued assistance.

Paddy McDonnell's preference is for a chair with a fully supported seat. He bases that view on delivering evacuation-chair training, observing staff delivering instructor training and feedback received from staff over the years. His practical concern is stability while helping someone into and out of the chair.

This is a practice-based preference, not comparative clinical evidence or a safety ranking. Suitability must be established for the individual, equipment and evacuation arrangements. Manufacturer references identify the evidence examined; they are not a recommendation of a model for a particular person or building.

Does one-operator descent mean one-person transfer?

A chair described as suitable for one-operator descent does not, by that description alone, establish that one assistant can safely complete every stage of an evacuation.

For every chair design, assess preparation and stability, the person's transfer into and out of the chair, use of restraints, travel and onward seating. A person who can stand and sit independently has different transfer requirements from someone who needs assistance throughout.

Check the current instructions for the exact model and establish the handling method, compatible aids and number of assistants required for the individual. A stable deployed chair can assist the process, but it does not remove the person's assessed need for support.

Manufacturer instructions describe intended operation. A practical demonstration supplies different evidence. Management should ask to see the complete relevant transfer: who stabilises the chair, who assists the person, which aids are used, and how unloading is achieved. Someone independently standing and sitting does not represent a dependent-person transfer. Any demonstration must follow the instructions for that exact model and an assessed handling method, without exposing the person or assistants to an unsafe transfer.

No dependent-person loading video was assessed in this review. The information presented does not rank manufacturers or establish that any chair design is universally suitable or unsuitable for one-person transfers.

What about frail occupants and prolonged sitting?

For a frail person, transfer difficulty, posture, skin tolerance and time spent seated require assessment. The plan should include unloading and suitable onward seating, rather than leaving someone in an emergency device for an unassessed period.

HSE pressure-ulcer information identifies reduced mobility among relevant risks. The International Guideline's seating chapter, recommendations S1-S4, supports individual assessment, suitable pressure redistribution, repositioning and attention to seated duration.

These are general seating principles. They do not establish comparative injury rates for evacuation-chair designs. A wheelchair posture study found changes in shear and pressure with sacral sitting, but tested healthy young adults rather than frail occupants in evacuation chairs.

The evidence reviewed here does not establish comparative injury rates between evacuation-chair designs or a universal safe sitting time. Pressure, posture, comfort and transfer risks need assessment for each person with any proposed chair.

How does this apply in a nursing home?

Management must account for dependency, including residents who mobilise with frames or rollators. Horizontal mobility does not establish stair ability. Away from the bed, transfer onto a floor-level evacuation mat may be unsafe or impracticable; another suitable method, potentially an assessed chair, is then needed. Equipment, trained staff and safe transfers must remain available for onward evacuation. Regulation 28(2)(iv) of the older-people regulations requires adequate evacuation arrangements and safe placement of residents. The HIQA Fire Safety Handbook, pages 37-39, 57 and 99-100, addresses individual needs, aids, staffing and further evacuation.

Are healthcare HTMs recognised in Irish guidance?

Yes, within the stated scope. TGD B paragraph 1.2.1 expressly refers hospital means of escape to chapters 3 and 5 of HTM 05-02, alongside its own subsection 1.9. Other Part B matters remain subject to the TGD's stated provisions. Nursing homes require examination of the applicable care-facility provisions; they must not automatically be treated as hospitals.

HTM 05-02, paragraphs 3.43 and 3.53-3.54, addresses escape stairways and assisted patient evacuation. It reinforces the need for the physical route to accommodate the selected method. The Irish cross-reference is specific; it does not make every provision of every healthcare HTM a universal Irish legal requirement.

Where did modern evacuation chairs come from?

Earlier assisted stair evacuation involved carrying people or using carrying chairs, stretchers and other aids. Such methods remain relevant in some settings, subject to assessment.

In Evac+Chair's account of its development, David Egen developed a stair-supported descent chair following a 1980 high-rise fire alarm; the company records its introduction in 1982. This is one attributed product history, not a claim to the first-ever evacuation aid.

Development has broadened the choice of seating, loading and movement arrangements, as the supported-seat examples above illustrate. It does not remove the need to assess the entire journey. A device that descends efficiently still needs a workable method of loading and unloading.

What should management record before choosing chairs?

Retain the reason for the number and locations chosen, the people and demand considered, route restrictions, transfer methods, staffing and exercise findings. Resolve any gap where a person can reach an alternative stair but cannot continue from it. A shared-device arrangement needs evidence that it remains available and usable under the assessed conditions.

Phoenix STS provides evacuation chair operator training and evacuation chair instructor training. Training should address the actual equipment and arrangements; attendance alone does not demonstrate that the building's provision is adequate.

Subscribe to the Phoenix STS newsletter for fire safety and health and safety updates.

Important note

This article provides general information about evacuation-chair provision in Irish buildings, based on the sources reviewed on 19 October 2026. It is not legal advice, a building-specific fire engineering opinion or an operating or transfer procedure. It does not certify compliance or guarantee safe evacuation. The example is illustrative and does not determine a chair number or validate an evacuation plan.

Management should not rely on this article alone to select equipment, quantities, locations, staffing or transfer methods. Competent persons must assess the building and individual needs, with relevant clinical and manual-handling input where required. Check applicable legislation, design guidance, certificates and current instructions for the exact equipment. Use must remain within those instructions and the assessed arrangements, with appropriately trained assistance.